New Files Show Epstein Was ‘Too Useful’ for Banks to Drop — Trump Was ‘Too Politically Dangerous’ to Keep

The newest Epstein disclosures include deposition testimony that illustrates, in unusually concrete detail, how major financial institutions assessed risk, value, and accountability.

The transcript does not add new allegations about Epstein. Instead, it explains why he remained bankable long after his 2008 conviction and why his relationship with major banks survived despite generating almost no traditional revenue.

That institutional logic is the same logic that later drove JPMorgan to end its ties with Trump Media, and the contrast between the two cases shows how selectively these standards are applied.

In the deposition, Paul Morris—a private banker who handled Epstein’s accounts at JPMorgan Chase and later Deutsche Bank—described Epstein’s financial profile with unusual precision.

Epstein’s trading was minimal. His accounts produced limited fees.

He was not a high-activity client and did not utilize the investment tools that banks rely on to generate consistent revenue. By every conventional benchmark, he was a low-value account.

And yet, the relationship continued.

The deposition shows why. Epstein was not retained for his financial performance but for his institutional usefulness.

Morris acknowledged that Epstein facilitated introductions to ultra-wealthy individuals that the bank viewed as essential prospects. One example was Leon Black, whom Morris identified as a “priority prospect” because of Black’s significant net worth and influence in the investment sector.

Epstein introduced the bank to real-estate investor Andrew Farkas and discussed a potential connection involving biotech investor Boris Nikolic, who had ties to Bill Gates.

These introductions were specific, documented, and initiated by Epstein, not the bank.

This is the key element that many public accounts overlook. Epstein was not being managed as a traditional client. He functioned as a relationship broker inside a system where introductions to power carry more internal value than account-level returns.

Banks routinely emphasize compliance structures, but the testimony shows how those structures contract when the client provides access that cannot be replicated elsewhere.

Keep reading